Elizabeth Warren on student loans, common sense

Bank on students. They are a much sounder investment in the future of the US than banks too big to fail.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D – Massachusetts) once again brings a rare commodity to the US Senate: common sense.

In her first standalone piece of legislation, Warren wants to require that student loans are offered at the same rate that banks pay (currently 0.75 percent from the Federal Reserve).

"If the Federal Reserve can float trillions of dollars to large financial institution, surely they can float the Department of Education the money to fund our students, keep us competitive, and grow our middle class."

"Let’s face it: Big banks get a great deal when they borrow money from the Fed. In effect, the American taxpayer is investing in those banks. We should make the same kind of investment in our young people who are trying to get an education. Lend them the money and make them to pay it back, but give our kids a break on the interest they pay. Let’s bank on students."

On July 1, without action from Congress, Stafford loan interest rates for some 7 million students are set to double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent….

Warren…would prevent that hike and take the additional step of cutting the rate to 0.75 percent — the same rate that big banks are allowed to borrow at — for one year until Congress can achieve a more permanent fix.

Bank on students. They are a much sounder investment in the future of the US than banks too big to fail.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D – Massachusetts) once again brings a rare commodity to the US Senate: common sense.

In her first standalone piece of legislation, Warren wants to require that student loans are offered at the same rate that banks pay (currently 0.75 percent from the Federal Reserve).

"If the Federal Reserve can float trillions of dollars to large financial institution, surely they can float the Department of Education the money to fund our students, keep us competitive, and grow our middle class."

"Let’s face it: Big banks get a great deal when they borrow money from the Fed. In effect, the American taxpayer is investing in those banks. We should make the same kind of investment in our young people who are trying to get an education. Lend them the money and make them to pay it back, but give our kids a break on the interest they pay. Let’s bank on students."

On July 1, without action from Congress, Stafford loan interest rates for some 7 million students are set to double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent….

Warren…would prevent that hike and take the additional step of cutting the rate to 0.75 percent — the same rate that big banks are allowed to borrow at — for one year until Congress can achieve a more permanent fix.

Elizabeth Warren rocks! Let the conservatives here throw their stones but the truth is that people like Elizabeth Warren are fighting for the people while the champions of the Republican party are fighting for the big monied interests.

Elizabeth Warren rocks! Let the conservatives here throw their stones but the truth is that people like Elizabeth Warren are fighting for the people while the champions of the Republican party are fighting for the big monied interests.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but higher education is a big moneyed interest.

Elizabeth Warren rocks! Let the conservatives here throw their stones but the truth is that people like Elizabeth Warren are fighting for the people while the champions of the Republican party are fighting for the big monied interests.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but higher education is a big moneyed interest.

Elizabeth Warren rocks! Let the conservatives here throw their stones but the truth is that people like Elizabeth Warren are fighting for the people while the champions of the Republican party are fighting for the big monied interests.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but higher education is a big moneyed interest.

You have a very deluded sense of "a big monied interest." Gee let's see... students??? I'm sure everyone will buy that one.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but higher education is a big moneyed interest.

Wasn't she a professor somewhere?

Elizabeth Warren taught in Harvard Law School. Not all higher education are equal. Spending $50,000 a year in Harvard Law School is money well spent, return on the investment is expected to be high. Spending $25,000 a year in Liberty U is being fleeced ... well, just take a look at our favorite Liberty U alumnus here.

I think everyone should have access to higher education, but I don't think the government should be involved or back the loans. Why? What will be their criteria? Will they give loans to anyone or only those that have decent credit? If they are discriminatory (not loaning to people w/ bad credit, which is common sense) then you have certain people in an uproar. If they aren't discriminatory, then there are going to be a lot of loans defaulted on. Considering an education costs as much as some mortgages, they should stay out of it. Maybe, the governemnt could offer to cover the interest of a loan if the student keeps a 3.0 GPA. That way, folks w/ crappy credit can get a predatory loan on the free marker but not get raped w/ interest if they do well in school. Incentive vs gift?

I think everyone should have access to higher education, but I don't think the government should be involved or back the loans. Why? What will be their criteria? Will they give loans to anyone or only those that have decent credit? If they are discriminatory (not loaning to people w/ bad credit, which is common sense) then you have certain people in an uproar. If they aren't discriminatory, then there are going to be a lot of loans defaulted on. Considering an education costs as much as some mortgages, they should stay out of it. Maybe, the governemnt could offer to cover the interest of a loan if the student keeps a 3.0 GPA. That way, folks w/ crappy credit can get a predatory loan on the free marker but not get raped w/ interest if they do well in school. Incentive vs gift?

Interesting thought, but do you give the person with a 3.01 GPA majoring in basketweaving at the local junior college break on interest and not the person with a 2.99 majoring in bio-engineering at MIT?

Elizabeth Warren taught in Harvard Law School. Not all higher education are equal. Spending $50,000 a year in Harvard Law School is money well spent, return on the investment is expected to be high. Spending $25,000 a year in Liberty U is being fleeced ... well, just take a look at our favorite Liberty U alumnus here.

then I am sure you will be happy to know I didn't spend a dime for my BS from Liberty. But I do thank you for helping to pay for it

Maybe, the governemnt could offer to cover the interest of a loan if the student keeps a 3.0 GPA.

Interesting thought, but do you give the person with a 3.01 GPA majoring in basketweaving at the local junior college break on interest and not the person with a 2.99 majoring in bio-engineering at MIT?

Good question. Probably a great reason to keep the government out of it in the first place. In their attempts to make it fair, they will completely screw it up and make it cost 5x more.

I think everyone should have access to higher education, but I don't think the government should be involved or back the loans. Why? What will be their criteria? Will they give loans to anyone or only those that have decent credit? If they are discriminatory (not loaning to people w/ bad credit, which is common sense) then you have certain people in an uproar. If they aren't discriminatory, then there are going to be a lot of loans defaulted on. Considering an education costs as much as some mortgages, they should stay out of it. Maybe, the governemnt could offer to cover the interest of a loan if the student keeps a 3.0 GPA. That way, folks w/ crappy credit can get a predatory loan on the free marker but not get raped w/ interest if they do well in school. Incentive vs gift?

Do you really not know anything about federal student loans? All of your concerns are already addressed in the system. The only onging problem is Congress allowing the interest rates to flucuate pretty wildly so that students cannot even properly plan throught the 3-4 year time period in which your earn a B.A./B.S. The only other profoundly stupid provision is the time period bar from borrowing for any drug conviction, including misdemeanor marijuana possession.

Default on federal student loans is really not a concern and the return on those loans and the liklihood of timely repayment exceeds the rate at which banks do so. There are lots of repayment options and default causes a host of problems beyond simply tanking your credit score. Until you are current on paying loans, you cannot borrow again and you cannot receive a federal tax refund. If you're married and file jointly, any return amount can be withheld. You also either cannot collect many other other benefits from the government (even "earned" ones from SSA or the VA) or repayment can be taken as a percentage of those benefits. Fed student loans are also not dischargable in bankruptcy.

Originally Posted by Shogun09:

Originally Posted by sleepingtiger:

Elizabeth Warren taught in Harvard Law School. Not all higher education are equal. Spending $50,000 a year in Harvard Law School is money well spent, return on the investment is expected to be high. Spending $25,000 a year in Liberty U is being fleeced ... well, just take a look at our favorite Liberty U alumnus here.

then I am sure you will be happy to know I didn't spend a dime for my BS from Liberty. But I do thank you for helping to pay for it

The only thing worse than wasting your own money is wasting someone else's.

Instead of telling greedy bankers that they aren't allowed to make any money by being greedy bankers, why can't those greedy college professors and greedy college administrators just agree to give themselves pay cuts so that they can lower their prices and make the college more affordable for the masses?

Instead of telling greedy bankers that they aren't allowed to make any money by being greedy bankers, why can't those greedy college professors and greedy college administrators just agree to give themselves pay cuts so that they can lower their prices and make the college more affordable for the masses?

This isn't a solution. It isn't even in the same hemisphere as a solution.

Elizabeth Warren taught in Harvard Law School. Not all higher education are equal. Spending $50,000 a year in Harvard Law School is money well spent, return on the investment is expected to be high. Spending $25,000 a year in Liberty U is being fleeced ... well, just take a look at our favorite Liberty U alumnus here.

then I am sure you will be happy to know I didn't spend a dime for my BS from Liberty. But I do thank you for helping to pay for it

I have a problem with our tax monies going toward a college education that teaches young earth creationism as an explanation for the the creation of the earth. I also have a problem with US tax monies going toward any religious institution or institution that requires attendance of religious brainwashing classes.

Instead of telling greedy bankers that they aren't allowed to make any money by being greedy bankers, why can't those greedy college professors and greedy college administrators just agree to give themselves pay cuts so that they can lower their prices and make the college more affordable for the masses?

This isn't a solution. It isn't even in the same hemisphere as a solution.

If they really cared about the plight of their students, they shouldn't mind taking a pay cut themselves instead of trying to force pay cuts/limit profits of other people. Let them clean their own house before attacking others.

Earlier this week, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan addressed some of these concerns in a speech where he urged colleges to get serious about their cost problem. But there's only so much the federal government can (and should) do. The underlying structure of American higher education needs dramatic reform before there will be any relief in sight.

Whereas private businesses cut prices for consumers and costs to themselves through efficiencies that increase profits and incomes, universities lack those incentives.

Indeed, the typical successful university president views his or her key constituencies not to be the customer (students and their parents who pay tuition charges or the granters of research funds), but rather others -- the faculty, important alumni, key administrators, trustees and occasionally politicians. They please these constituencies by raising, and then spending, lots of money.

They effectively bribe powerful faculty with low teaching loads, high salaries and good parking. They give the alumni successful intercollegiate athletic programs that are expensive and usually financed off the backs of students. They give trustees whatever they want, no matter how costly or eccentric.

Colleges use merit aid for talented middle- and upper-income students because it is less costly than pursuing similar prospects from poor families, said Catharine Hill, Vassar’s president. Enrolling low-income students costs schools money because they are giving up a spot for those who can pay full freight -- or close to it.

“Unfortunately this kind of choice further contributes to the income inequality that has increased significantly in the United States over the last three or four decades,” Hill said in an e-mail. “Our nation’s commitment to equal opportunity and social mobility is at risk.”

I have a problem with our tax monies going toward a college education that teaches young earth creationism as an explanation for the the creation of the earth. I also have a problem with US tax monies going toward any religious institution or institution that requires attendance of religious brainwashing classes.

we all have issues with where tax money is spent. take it up with your congressman.

Maybe, the governemnt could offer to cover the interest of a loan if the student keeps a 3.0 GPA.

Interesting thought, but do you give the person with a 3.01 GPA majoring in basketweaving at the local junior college break on interest and not the person with a 2.99 majoring in bio-engineering at MIT?

Good question. Probably a great reason to keep the government out of it in the first place. In their attempts to make it fair, they will completely screw it up and make it cost 5x more.

Another interesting thought would be government covers interest for fields where there is a demand, engineering, medical, the hard sciences, IT, business, etc and skip subsidies in fields where a degree gets someone a job making coffee at Starbucks.

^States, nation-wide, have done exactly as you have suggested. To zero net effect.

So we need to tighten the leash even more.

As usual, no solutions. Just another steaming pile of irrational anger.

Oh, I'm not angry, that's just you reading into my responses things that aren't there.

For-profit businesses consider it perfectly rational for service providers to streamline their expenses in order to provide their services at more competitive prices. If you think that's irrational, that's your lack of understanding.

^States, nation-wide, have done exactly as you have suggested. To zero net effect.

So we need to tighten the leash even more.

As usual, no solutions. Just another steaming pile of irrational anger.

Oh, I'm not angry, that's just you reading into my responses things that aren't there.

For-profit businesses consider it perfectly rational for service providers to streamline their expenses in order to provide their services at more competitive prices. If you think that's irrational, that's your lack of understanding.

With hugs and kisses,

Pete.

Thank you for your misapplication of business acumen, President Perot.

Maybe, the governemnt could offer to cover the interest of a loan if the student keeps a 3.0 GPA.

Interesting thought, but do you give the person with a 3.01 GPA majoring in basketweaving at the local junior college break on interest and not the person with a 2.99 majoring in bio-engineering at MIT?

Good question. Probably a great reason to keep the government out of it in the first place. In their attempts to make it fair, they will completely screw it up and make it cost 5x more.

Another interesting thought would be government covers interest for fields where there is a demand, engineering, medical, the hard sciences, IT, business, etc and skip subsidies in fields where a degree gets someone a job making coffee at Starbucks.

The government already subsidizes people willing to go into careers that have high demand but not necessarily corresponding high salaries to lure people to those jobs. None of the occupations you cited have difficulty attracting people to the profession. What would be the sense in attempting to attract more people to the lucrative jobs that have no problem attracting more people than they need?

Maybe, the governemnt could offer to cover the interest of a loan if the student keeps a 3.0 GPA.

Interesting thought, but do you give the person with a 3.01 GPA majoring in basketweaving at the local junior college break on interest and not the person with a 2.99 majoring in bio-engineering at MIT?

Good question. Probably a great reason to keep the government out of it in the first place. In their attempts to make it fair, they will completely screw it up and make it cost 5x more.

Another interesting thought would be government covers interest for fields where there is a demand, engineering, medical, the hard sciences, IT, business, etc and skip subsidies in fields where a degree gets someone a job making coffee at Starbucks.

The government already subsidizes people willing to go into careers that have high demand but not necessarily corresponding high salaries to lure people to those jobs. None of the occupations you cited have difficulty attracting people to the profession. What would be the sense in attempting to attract more people to the lucrative jobs that have no problem attracting more people than they need?

Obviously ... It would give the GOP yet another cheap excuse to claim that higher unemployment is the result of "government".

Maybe, the governemnt could offer to cover the interest of a loan if the student keeps a 3.0 GPA.

Interesting thought, but do you give the person with a 3.01 GPA majoring in basketweaving at the local junior college break on interest and not the person with a 2.99 majoring in bio-engineering at MIT?

Good question. Probably a great reason to keep the government out of it in the first place. In their attempts to make it fair, they will completely screw it up and make it cost 5x more.

Another interesting thought would be government covers interest for fields where there is a demand, engineering, medical, the hard sciences, IT, business, etc and skip subsidies in fields where a degree gets someone a job making coffee at Starbucks.

The government already subsidizes people willing to go into careers that have high demand but not necessarily corresponding high salaries to lure people to those jobs. None of the occupations you cited have difficulty attracting people to the profession. What would be the sense in attempting to attract more people to the lucrative jobs that have no problem attracting more people than they need?

The programs you elude to, teachers/medical professionals for poor under-served areas are great. People getting degrees that are in demand still have high loans. I question giving $100k in loans to someone majoring in poetry or some other field with no job demand. We look at college as an investment, if someone will most likely not make enough in the field to pay back the loan, the investment isn't looking too good.

Instead of telling greedy bankers that they aren't allowed to make any money by being greedy bankers, why can't those greedy college professors and greedy college administrators just agree to give themselves pay cuts so that they can lower their prices and make the college more affordable for the masses?

It's not just the tuition it's the lifestyle choices of many students that cause debt issues. I happen to work near the community where the state school I graduated from is located. When I attended there students were 2 to a small dorm room or 4 in a 2 bedroom apartment with one bathroom. Today many of the dorms are torn down and replaced with 4 bedroom university owned apartments with 4 kids in them. Instead of 4 people to a 2 bedroom apartment, nobody shares a bedroom with another student (unless they are shacking up). Many of the new apartments are 4 residents, 4 bedrooms, 4 1/2 bath room and granite countertops. Kids thumb up their noses at Bud Light and feel they have to drink the coolest microbrew. Instead of 5 guys jumping in a car and going to Daytona for break, it's flights to Cancun. I could go on, but you get the picture.

Maybe, the governemnt could offer to cover the interest of a loan if the student keeps a 3.0 GPA.

Interesting thought, but do you give the person with a 3.01 GPA majoring in basketweaving at the local junior college break on interest and not the person with a 2.99 majoring in bio-engineering at MIT?

Good question. Probably a great reason to keep the government out of it in the first place. In their attempts to make it fair, they will completely screw it up and make it cost 5x more.

Another interesting thought would be government covers interest for fields where there is a demand, engineering, medical, the hard sciences, IT, business, etc and skip subsidies in fields where a degree gets someone a job making coffee at Starbucks.

The government already subsidizes people willing to go into careers that have high demand but not necessarily corresponding high salaries to lure people to those jobs. None of the occupations you cited have difficulty attracting people to the profession. What would be the sense in attempting to attract more people to the lucrative jobs that have no problem attracting more people than they need?

The programs you elude to, teachers/medical professionals for poor under-served areas are great. People getting degrees that are in demand still have high loans. I question giving $100k in loans to someone majoring in poetry or some other field with no job demand. We look at college as an investment, if someone will most likely not make enough in the field to pay back the loan, the investment isn't looking too good.

Please post published statistics on US students majoring in "unnecessary" fields along with their average student loan burden. Then do the same for those majoring in the fields you deem "worthy" of a job market. Add some validity. Or don't. Your choice.

Instead of telling greedy bankers that they aren't allowed to make any money by being greedy bankers, why can't those greedy college professors and greedy college administrators just agree to give themselves pay cuts so that they can lower their prices and make the college more affordable for the masses?

It's not just the tuition it's the lifestyle choices of many students that cause debt issues. I happen to work near the community where the state school I graduated from is located. When I attended there students were 2 to a small dorm room or 4 in a 2 bedroom apartment with one bathroom. Today many of the dorms are torn down and replaced with 4 bedroom university owned apartments with 4 kids in them. Instead of 4 people to a 2 bedroom apartment, nobody shares a bedroom with another student (unless they are shacking up). Many of the new apartments are 4 residents, 4 bedrooms, 4 1/2 bath room and granite countertops. Kids thumb up their noses at Bud Light and feel they have to drink the coolest microbrew. Instead of 5 guys jumping in a car and going to Daytona for break, it's flights to Cancun. I could go on, but you get the picture.

As much as people want to blame academic instututions (and there are some that are pretty much predatory) the driving force behind these changes is the way that parents are raising their children and insisting that everyone should go to college. When did raising spoiled, irresponsible, entitled children who could not survive on their own at 18 become such a fad?

Originally Posted by Packerjohn:

Originally Posted by DeterminedTortoise:

Originally Posted by Packerjohn:

Originally Posted by ronniewo:

Originally Posted by Packerjohn:

Originally Posted by ronniewo:

Maybe, the governemnt could offer to cover the interest of a loan if the student keeps a 3.0 GPA.

Interesting thought, but do you give the person with a 3.01 GPA majoring in basketweaving at the local junior college break on interest and not the person with a 2.99 majoring in bio-engineering at MIT?

Good question. Probably a great reason to keep the government out of it in the first place. In their attempts to make it fair, they will completely screw it up and make it cost 5x more.

Another interesting thought would be government covers interest for fields where there is a demand, engineering, medical, the hard sciences, IT, business, etc and skip subsidies in fields where a degree gets someone a job making coffee at Starbucks.

The government already subsidizes people willing to go into careers that have high demand but not necessarily corresponding high salaries to lure people to those jobs. None of the occupations you cited have difficulty attracting people to the profession. What would be the sense in attempting to attract more people to the lucrative jobs that have no problem attracting more people than they need?

The programs you elude to, teachers/medical professionals for poor under-served areas are great. People getting degrees that are in demand still have high loans. I question giving $100k in loans to someone majoring in poetry or some other field with no job demand. We look at college as an investment, if someone will most likely not make enough in the field to pay back the loan, the investment isn't looking too good.

Those weren't the programs I was alluding to, but yes, those also exist. Reality does not show that people "majoring in poetry" are any less likely to pay back their government loans than someone with a degree in "high demand." You might also think that they would be more likley to take the lower payment, higher lifetime interest repayment plans than their higher-earning counterparts, but that one isn't borne out either.

Maybe, the governemnt could offer to cover the interest of a loan if the student keeps a 3.0 GPA.

Interesting thought, but do you give the person with a 3.01 GPA majoring in basketweaving at the local junior college break on interest and not the person with a 2.99 majoring in bio-engineering at MIT?

Good question. Probably a great reason to keep the government out of it in the first place. In their attempts to make it fair, they will completely screw it up and make it cost 5x more.

Another interesting thought would be government covers interest for fields where there is a demand, engineering, medical, the hard sciences, IT, business, etc and skip subsidies in fields where a degree gets someone a job making coffee at Starbucks.

The government already subsidizes people willing to go into careers that have high demand but not necessarily corresponding high salaries to lure people to those jobs. None of the occupations you cited have difficulty attracting people to the profession. What would be the sense in attempting to attract more people to the lucrative jobs that have no problem attracting more people than they need?

The programs you elude to, teachers/medical professionals for poor under-served areas are great. People getting degrees that are in demand still have high loans. I question giving $100k in loans to someone majoring in poetry or some other field with no job demand. We look at college as an investment, if someone will most likely not make enough in the field to pay back the loan, the investment isn't looking too good.

Please post published statistics on US students majoring in "unnecessary" fields along with their average student loan burden. Then do the same for those majoring in the fields you deem "worthy" of a job market. Add some validity. Or don't. Your choice.

Maybe, the governemnt could offer to cover the interest of a loan if the student keeps a 3.0 GPA.

Interesting thought, but do you give the person with a 3.01 GPA majoring in basketweaving at the local junior college break on interest and not the person with a 2.99 majoring in bio-engineering at MIT?

Good question. Probably a great reason to keep the government out of it in the first place. In their attempts to make it fair, they will completely screw it up and make it cost 5x more.

Another interesting thought would be government covers interest for fields where there is a demand, engineering, medical, the hard sciences, IT, business, etc and skip subsidies in fields where a degree gets someone a job making coffee at Starbucks.

The government already subsidizes people willing to go into careers that have high demand but not necessarily corresponding high salaries to lure people to those jobs. None of the occupations you cited have difficulty attracting people to the profession. What would be the sense in attempting to attract more people to the lucrative jobs that have no problem attracting more people than they need?

The programs you elude to, teachers/medical professionals for poor under-served areas are great. People getting degrees that are in demand still have high loans. I question giving $100k in loans to someone majoring in poetry or some other field with no job demand. We look at college as an investment, if someone will most likely not make enough in the field to pay back the loan, the investment isn't looking too good.

Please post published statistics on US students majoring in "unnecessary" fields along with their average student loan burden. Then do the same for those majoring in the fields you deem "worthy" of a job market. Add some validity. Or don't. Your choice.

I did look real quick and didn't find anything that broke down student debt by major. If you can find something please post it. It is common knowledge that the STEM fields and business pay more than "unnecessary" fields and have less unemployment/under-employment. One of the prime reasons people have problems paying back student loans is unemployment/under-employment. Makes sense doesn't it?

Sorry, I didn't get back to you in a timely manner. Some people have a life outside posting on the web.

Maybe, the governemnt could offer to cover the interest of a loan if the student keeps a 3.0 GPA.

Interesting thought, but do you give the person with a 3.01 GPA majoring in basketweaving at the local junior college break on interest and not the person with a 2.99 majoring in bio-engineering at MIT?

Good question. Probably a great reason to keep the government out of it in the first place. In their attempts to make it fair, they will completely screw it up and make it cost 5x more.

Another interesting thought would be government covers interest for fields where there is a demand, engineering, medical, the hard sciences, IT, business, etc and skip subsidies in fields where a degree gets someone a job making coffee at Starbucks.

The government already subsidizes people willing to go into careers that have high demand but not necessarily corresponding high salaries to lure people to those jobs. None of the occupations you cited have difficulty attracting people to the profession. What would be the sense in attempting to attract more people to the lucrative jobs that have no problem attracting more people than they need?

The programs you elude to, teachers/medical professionals for poor under-served areas are great. People getting degrees that are in demand still have high loans. I question giving $100k in loans to someone majoring in poetry or some other field with no job demand. We look at college as an investment, if someone will most likely not make enough in the field to pay back the loan, the investment isn't looking too good.

Please post published statistics on US students majoring in "unnecessary" fields along with their average student loan burden. Then do the same for those majoring in the fields you deem "worthy" of a job market. Add some validity. Or don't. Your choice.

I did look real quick and didn't find anything that broke down student debt by major. If you can find something please post it. It is common knowledge that the STEM fields and business pay more than "unnecessary" fields and have less unemployment/under-employment. One of the prime reasons people have problems paying back student loans is unemployment/under-employment. Makes sense doesn't it?

Sorry, I didn't get back to you in a timely manner. Some people have a life outside posting on the web.

This is a completely different statement than your previous one claiming that those who major in the arts, for example, carry the same student debt as those majoring in "worthy" fields. Pick a target and stick with it?

Maybe, the governemnt could offer to cover the interest of a loan if the student keeps a 3.0 GPA.

Interesting thought, but do you give the person with a 3.01 GPA majoring in basketweaving at the local junior college break on interest and not the person with a 2.99 majoring in bio-engineering at MIT?

Good question. Probably a great reason to keep the government out of it in the first place. In their attempts to make it fair, they will completely screw it up and make it cost 5x more.

Another interesting thought would be government covers interest for fields where there is a demand, engineering, medical, the hard sciences, IT, business, etc and skip subsidies in fields where a degree gets someone a job making coffee at Starbucks.

The government already subsidizes people willing to go into careers that have high demand but not necessarily corresponding high salaries to lure people to those jobs. None of the occupations you cited have difficulty attracting people to the profession. What would be the sense in attempting to attract more people to the lucrative jobs that have no problem attracting more people than they need?

The programs you elude to, teachers/medical professionals for poor under-served areas are great. People getting degrees that are in demand still have high loans. I question giving $100k in loans to someone majoring in poetry or some other field with no job demand. We look at college as an investment, if someone will most likely not make enough in the field to pay back the loan, the investment isn't looking too good.

Please post published statistics on US students majoring in "unnecessary" fields along with their average student loan burden. Then do the same for those majoring in the fields you deem "worthy" of a job market. Add some validity. Or don't. Your choice.

I did look real quick and didn't find anything that broke down student debt by major. If you can find something please post it. It is common knowledge that the STEM fields and business pay more than "unnecessary" fields and have less unemployment/under-employment. One of the prime reasons people have problems paying back student loans is unemployment/under-employment. Makes sense doesn't it?

Sorry, I didn't get back to you in a timely manner. Some people have a life outside posting on the web.

This is a completely different statement than your previous one claiming that those who major in the arts, for example, carry the same student debt as those majoring in "worthy" fields. Pick a target and stick with it?

Please re-read the string. Nowhere did I say people in "unnecessary" fields have a higher post-college student debt loan vs anyone else. I did say, their ability to repay is impacted by the fact these fields pay less and have fewer job prospects than STEM for example

Maybe, the governemnt could offer to cover the interest of a loan if the student keeps a 3.0 GPA.

Interesting thought, but do you give the person with a 3.01 GPA majoring in basketweaving at the local junior college break on interest and not the person with a 2.99 majoring in bio-engineering at MIT?

Good question. Probably a great reason to keep the government out of it in the first place. In their attempts to make it fair, they will completely screw it up and make it cost 5x more.

Another interesting thought would be government covers interest for fields where there is a demand, engineering, medical, the hard sciences, IT, business, etc and skip subsidies in fields where a degree gets someone a job making coffee at Starbucks.

The government already subsidizes people willing to go into careers that have high demand but not necessarily corresponding high salaries to lure people to those jobs. None of the occupations you cited have difficulty attracting people to the profession. What would be the sense in attempting to attract more people to the lucrative jobs that have no problem attracting more people than they need?

The programs you elude to, teachers/medical professionals for poor under-served areas are great. People getting degrees that are in demand still have high loans. I question giving $100k in loans to someone majoring in poetry or some other field with no job demand. We look at college as an investment, if someone will most likely not make enough in the field to pay back the loan, the investment isn't looking too good.

Please post published statistics on US students majoring in "unnecessary" fields along with their average student loan burden. Then do the same for those majoring in the fields you deem "worthy" of a job market. Add some validity. Or don't. Your choice.

I did look real quick and didn't find anything that broke down student debt by major. If you can find something please post it. It is common knowledge that the STEM fields and business pay more than "unnecessary" fields and have less unemployment/under-employment. One of the prime reasons people have problems paying back student loans is unemployment/under-employment. Makes sense doesn't it?

Sorry, I didn't get back to you in a timely manner. Some people have a life outside posting on the web.

This is a completely different statement than your previous one claiming that those who major in the arts, for example, carry the same student debt as those majoring in "worthy" fields. Pick a target and stick with it?

Please re-read the string. Nowhere did I say people in "unnecessary" fields have a higher post-college student debt loan vs anyone else. I did say, their ability to repay is impacted by the fact these fields pay less and have fewer job prospects than STEM for example

You alleged an allegation that "unnecessary" majors carry an extremely high debt load. A reasonable person understands that this roughly equates to the same debt load carried by "necessary" majors, according to your example. The onus is clearly on you to support it. Do so. Or do not.

While this may be a running forum, it is a bit unseemly to sprint away from your own statement.

Please re-read the string. Nowhere did I say people in "unnecessary" fields have a higher post-college student debt loan vs anyone else. I did say, their ability to repay is impacted by the fact these fields pay less and have fewer job prospects than STEM for example

It might help if you clarified what you mean by "impacted." I've found no evidence that non-STEM are less likley to repay federal student loans or more likley to default. Income does facor into which repayment plan is selected, but less than one might expect. Most people select a payment plan that keeps the most money in their pockets right now, without regard to how much interest they will pay over the lifetime of the loan. Whether they graduate to a job that starts above or below $50k/year, they tend overwhelmingly to select the payment plan that will afford them the greatest resources to maximize their current lifestyle spending. Income does effect how many repayment options are available and for how long, but there is not evidence that higher income immediately following the obtaining of a degree makes one repay loans at a faster rate or makes one less likley to default.

I do find it interesting that almost wholly absent from this discussion is an acknowledgement that different people have different propensities in particular areas and that there is value in maximizing one's ability in those areas rather than attempting to steer them toward an area in which they don't have any natural or previously developed aptitude and accepting diminishing returns.

Maybe, the governemnt could offer to cover the interest of a loan if the student keeps a 3.0 GPA.

Interesting thought, but do you give the person with a 3.01 GPA majoring in basketweaving at the local junior college break on interest and not the person with a 2.99 majoring in bio-engineering at MIT?

Good question. Probably a great reason to keep the government out of it in the first place. In their attempts to make it fair, they will completely screw it up and make it cost 5x more.

Another interesting thought would be government covers interest for fields where there is a demand, engineering, medical, the hard sciences, IT, business, etc and skip subsidies in fields where a degree gets someone a job making coffee at Starbucks.

The government already subsidizes people willing to go into careers that have high demand but not necessarily corresponding high salaries to lure people to those jobs. None of the occupations you cited have difficulty attracting people to the profession. What would be the sense in attempting to attract more people to the lucrative jobs that have no problem attracting more people than they need?

The programs you elude to, teachers/medical professionals for poor under-served areas are great. People getting degrees that are in demand still have high loans. I question giving $100k in loans to someone majoring in poetry or some other field with no job demand. We look at college as an investment, if someone will most likely not make enough in the field to pay back the loan, the investment isn't looking too good.

Please post published statistics on US students majoring in "unnecessary" fields along with their average student loan burden. Then do the same for those majoring in the fields you deem "worthy" of a job market. Add some validity. Or don't. Your choice.

I did look real quick and didn't find anything that broke down student debt by major. If you can find something please post it. It is common knowledge that the STEM fields and business pay more than "unnecessary" fields and have less unemployment/under-employment. One of the prime reasons people have problems paying back student loans is unemployment/under-employment. Makes sense doesn't it?

Sorry, I didn't get back to you in a timely manner. Some people have a life outside posting on the web.

This is a completely different statement than your previous one claiming that those who major in the arts, for example, carry the same student debt as those majoring in "worthy" fields. Pick a target and stick with it?

Please re-read the string. Nowhere did I say people in "unnecessary" fields have a higher post-college student debt loan vs anyone else. I did say, their ability to repay is impacted by the fact these fields pay less and have fewer job prospects than STEM for example

You alleged an allegation that "unnecessary" majors carry an extremely high debt load. A reasonable person understands that this roughly equates to the same debt load carried by "necessary" majors, according to your example. The onus is clearly on you to support it. Do so. Or do not.

While this may be a running forum, it is a bit unseemly to sprint away from your own statement.

Please point out where I say the bolded statement. Take a look back, nowhere do I say "unnecessary" majors carry a higher debt load than other students. I do say that many of these majors have poor employment demand which results in these people having lower paying jobs which makes paying back loans more of a burden for them vs other majors with better job demand.